Alberto steps in it...

[CockySOB]

You're right. Stupid citizens. Who do we dare think we are to question the authority of The Party? Who do we stupid plebes think we are to look over the shoulder our politicians at work?

I'm sorry, I'll learn to subjugate to the will of The Party... perhaps a re-education camp is in order for those of us who dare question The Party?

You have no problem making delusional accusations, yet you refuse to see the partisan politics being played by the Democrats who first asked, "why?" Perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on the hypocrisy of your position before making more asinine comments. The embarrassment you prevent will probably be your own.

Perhaps you could explain why every POTUS since Reagan (again, that I know of) has dismissed the most if not all the US Attorneys who were in office at the time the new POTUS took office? How is this situation any different?

 

[jasendorf]

Bully, just what is ILLEGAL about what has been done with these attorneys???

What specifically is ILLEGAL....not what makes you angry, not what you think of the administration, not what do you think....what is ILLEGAL???

Republican Mindset: If it ain't illegal, it's moral, right and good.

 

[jasendorf]

You have no problem making delusional accusations, yet you refuse to see the partisan politics being played by the Democrats who first asked, "why?" Perhaps you should spend some time reflecting on the hypocrisy of your position before making more asinine comments. The embarrassment you prevent will probably be your own.

You asked who's asking. I'm asking. A private citizen. I want to know why they were fired. Last time I checked, we're still a government of, by and for the people. Not a government where I'll "learn my place."

Perhaps you could explain why every POTUS since Reagan (again, that I know of) has dismissed the most if not all the US Attorneys who were in office at the time the new POTUS took office? How is this situation any different?

Are you saying President Bush just took office? Seems to me you answered your own question before you even asked it.

 

[CockySOB]

You asked who's asking. I'm asking. A private citizen. I want to know why they were fired. Last time I checked, we're still a government of, by and for the people. Not a government where I'll "learn my place."

And why are you so interested? Is it because someone wailed that this is another illegal action by a corrupt Bush administration? Methinks that would be exactly why you are interested. Otherwise you would have been all over the dismissals of the US Attorneys in the past since they were based on political issues as well.

Are you saying President Bush just took office? Seems to me you answered your own question before you even asked it.

No, I'm saying that the custom of replacing US Attorneys for what are obviously political reasons is well-documented and long-standing. The only difference is timing, which makes me think this is part of a political grandstand.

 

[CSM]

You are wasting your time Cocky...pretty soon Jasendorf will say something about it not being illegal but it is immoral or some such crap...that is what libs do... which is why I put the trollish ones like Jasendorf on ignore!

 

[jasendorf]

And why are you so interested? Is it because someone wailed that this is another illegal action by a corrupt Bush administration? Methinks that would be exactly why you are interested. Otherwise you would have been all over the dismissals of the US Attorneys in the past since they were based on political issues as well.

No, I'm saying that the custom of replacing US Attorneys for what are obviously political reasons is well-documented and long-standing. The only difference is timing, which makes me think this is part of a political grandstand.

When I hear the an Administration spokesperson stand up and say, "Hey, we threw these guys out because their politics didn't jive with ours and we replaced them with people who did and that's our f*ing perogative so back the f* off." I'll believe that this wasn't underhanded. (I'll accept any paraphrase of the above)... but all I've heard is lies and coverup. And, where there're lies and coverup... there's something rotten.

 

[jasendorf]

You are wasting your time Cocky...pretty soon Jasendorf will say something about it not being illegal but it is immoral or some such crap...that is what libs do... which is why I put the trollish ones like Jasendorf on ignore!

Who's trolling? You're the one spouting off about how if it ain't illegal there's nothing wrong.

As long as you're comfortable with US Attorneys being hired and fired in accordance with their political affiliation, you don't have a problem... sleep good tonight. I prefer to have our US Attorneys hired and fired based on their qualifications and job performance. My way is the American way.

 

[CockySOB]

When I hear the an Administration spokesperson stand up and say, "Hey, we threw these guys out because their politics didn't jive with ours and we replaced them with people who did and that's our f*ing perogative so back the f* off." I'll believe that this wasn't underhanded. (I'll accept any paraphrase of the above)... but all I've heard is lies and coverup. And, where there're lies and coverup... there's something rotten.

And have you ever heard ANY administration say that when they dismissed all the sitting US Attorneys? EVER?

No, I thought not. Which makes your request now rather hypocritical.

 

[CockySOB]

You are wasting your time Cocky...pretty soon Jasendorf will say something about it not being illegal but it is immoral or some such crap...that is what libs do... which is why I put the trollish ones like Jasendorf on ignore!

I remember jasen from his earlier time on USMB. But I give almost everyone the benefit of the doubt - after all, some people do get wiser as time goes on.

Thanks though.

 

[jasendorf]

And have you ever heard ANY administration say that when they dismissed all the sitting US Attorneys? EVER?

No, I thought not. Which makes your request now rather hypocritical.

If they've got something to hide... which from the looks of their contortions and, what have now been proven to be, lies about what happened and who was involved... I, as a citizen of this country, want to know what it is. Who does this government think it is that it isn't answerable to its citizens any more?

 

[CockySOB]

If they've got something to hide... which from the looks of their contortions and, what have now been proven to be, lies about what happened and who was involved... I, as a citizen of this country, want to know what it is. Who does this government think it is that it isn't answerable to its citizens any more?

However you're assuming that this was more than one man overstepping his authority to make a statement to Congress, no? Sampson was fired was he not?

And last I checked, we hold Federal elections every 4 years to elect our administration for the next four years, which means that our government IS answerable to the public.

Again I ask, do you have a problem with each administration removing the prior administration's US Attorneys despite the fact that those appointees may have been performing their duties adequately?

 

[jasendorf]

However you're assuming that this was more than one man overstepping his authority to make a statement to Congress, no? Sampson was fired was he not?

And last I checked, we hold Federal elections every 4 years to elect our administration for the next four years, which means that our government IS answerable to the public.

And inbetween elections we need to STFU?

Again I ask, do you have a problem with each administration removing the prior administration's US Attorneys despite the fact that those appointees may have been performing their duties adequately?

It's unAmerican. Can you name other countries who reward Party loyalty? I can... but I don't think you'd like the comparison. In this country, we reward a job well done and fire a job done poorly. Or, maybe I'm naive. Maybe it really is all about sucking up to the next monarch.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, just what is ILLEGAL about what has been done with these attorneys???

What specifically is ILLEGAL....not what makes you angry, not what you think of the administration, not what do you think....what is ILLEGAL???

The legalities have yet to be sorted out. That the White House feels that it is within its bounds to sack US attorneys who are doing their jobs is, particularly where those jobs involve the prosecution of Republicans, is an unethical abuse of presidential power.

But when were you ever worried about the legalities? Oh, I remember, when Goatboy fired the travel office staffers. It's okay if Republicans abuse the powers of their offices, but scream bloody murder when a Democrat does it.

Chimpy and Co may have collectively crossed the line in conspiracy and obstruction when they denied investigators from the OPR the security clearances they needed to investigate Bush's warrantless wiretapping scheme.

I do so love watching the wheels falling off of this particular administration's cart. Schadenfreude...Just can't help myself.

 

[CSM]

The legalities have yet to be sorted out. That the White House feels that it is within its bounds to sack US attorneys who are doing their jobs is, particularly where those jobs involve the prosecution of Republicans, is an unethical abuse of presidential power.

But when were you ever worried about the legalities? Oh, I remember, when Goatboy fired the travel office staffers. It's okay if Republicans abuse the powers of their offices, but scream bloody murder when a Democrat does it.

Chimpy and Co may have collectively crossed the line in conspiracy and obstruction when they denied investigators from the OPR the security clearances they needed to investigate Bush's warrantless wiretapping scheme.

I do so love watching the wheels falling off of this particular administration's cart. Schadenfreude...Just can't help myself.

Just as I thought...nothinng illegal. What you are saying is "Booohooohooo, I don't like Bush, he's a big meany!" Unethical Abuse of Presidential Power??? Puleeeeze.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the "investigators" didn't qualify for security clearances? I am sure it didn't.

Besides being terribly boring, you are becoming tedious.

 

[red states rule]

Seems the firing of eight federal attorneys has led to some unintended consequences for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But then, that's not a hat he'd ever really worn at the DoJ. He's mostly served as an enabler for the Bush administration's policies. You know...warrantless wire-tapping...justifying torture...the suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i>...FBI abuses of the PATRIOT Act...little things like that. Taken as a whole though, they add up to Mr. Gonzales failing in his duties as Attorney General. His job is to enforce the law, not help the Executive branch castrate the Legislative and Judicial branches. His job is to uphold the laws, not serve as an enabler to an administration drunk on its fever dreams of power.

The scandals that have erupted around him in the last week show just how badly he has failed as the nation's top law enforcement officer, and give us insights into just how corrupt this administration is.

Were you this upset when Clinton fired 96 federal attorneys?

The liberal media was not - and neither were Republicans

They do serve at the pleasure of the President

 

[Bullypulpit]

Just as I thought...nothinng illegal. What you are saying is "Booohooohooo, I don't like Bush, he's a big meany!" Unethical Abuse of Presidential Power??? Puleeeeze.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe the "investigators" didn't qualify for security clearances? I am sure it didn't.

Besides being terribly boring, you are becoming tedious.

The only thing tedious is your continued support for an administration which clearly sees itself as being above the law and above the ethical considerations required for governing within the democratic framework of our Republic. The abuses of power perpetrated by this Administration only serve to undermine the Republic and its foundation...the Constitution.

As for the clearances required by the OPR investigators, they have not, until this administration been denied the clearances required to conduct their investigations. The only classified information they were seeking was that which had already been passed to then AG John Ashcroft, presidential counselor Alberto Gonzales and other DoJ attorneys who originally advised the White House on the warrantless wire-tapping scheme. Simply put, Chimpy and Co obstructed the conduct of an investigation into possible violations of Title III and FISA. But conspiracy and obstruction of justice are only and issue if democrats engage int these violations of the law, right? Your hypocrisy is showing.

 

[red states rule]

In 1993, WashPost Thought It Was 'Pretty Funny' Anyone Thought DOJ Was Fishy
Posted by Tim Graham on March 16, 2007 - 14:28.
While Washington Post reporters Dan Eggen and Paul Kane are getting keyboard blisters probing the White House shenanigans around U.S. attorney dismissals by Team Bush, know this: in 1993, the Post published no stories investigating what Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, or their Little Rock henchman, Webster Hubbell, was doing behind the scenes.

About two weeks after the mass firing, on April 3, 1993 the Post front page reported on how Hubbell surfaced for a Senate confirmation hearing, and reporter David Von Drehle thought it was “pretty funny” that the Wall Street Journal would portray him as an “ominous” figure. “The Judiciary Committee can ask Mr. Mysterious all the questions the Journal and others have been dying to pose.” Notice the Post thought it was “funny” anyone had a question to pose. They’d like people to think they’re equal-opportunity investigators, but they certainly don't look that way on U.S. attorney firings.

Hubbell is a poster boy for Clinton-era corruption. He was charged with stealing a half a million dollars from his law partners in Arkansas, and lavishing the money on furs for his wife and other greedy moves. After he resigned in disgrace in the spring of 1994, proclaiming his innocence, the White House leaned on all the President's buddies to pay him another $700,000 for supposed "jobs" that asked for no substantial work. One of those donors was even a media company: Time Warner paid Hubbell $5,000 for lobbying work, but he never contacted a government official for them.

But the Post insisted Hubbell was so misunderstood by the Wall Street Journal. He was a shy, sweet man and a pillar of integrity. The Post isn't much of a judge of character. Hubbell resigned after it was revealed he embezzled almost half a million dollars from the Rose Law Firm. Von Drehle's shy, sweet Hubbell piece was a beaut. It began:

No one laughed yesterday when Attorney General Janet Reno, introducing President Clinton's choice for associate attorney general, said: "One of the best things to happen to me in these past eight weeks was to find out who Webster Hubbell is."

But in fact, this was pretty funny. Hubbell, see, is the mystery man of the Clinton administration, famous for being invisible. Who Is Webster Hubbell? an ominous headline asked recently on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. When the Journal alleged further dark doings at the Justice Department, the headline read: Who Is Webster Hubbell? -- II.

Now America has a chance to find out. As Clinton's pick for the No. 3 post at Justice, Hubbell will face a Senate confirmation hearing. The Judiciary Committee can ask Mr. Mysterious all the questions the Journal and others have been dying to pose.

Is Hubbell a tool of his former law partner, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Did he "broker" a meeting where political pressure caused Justice to embarrass itself in the trial of Rep. Harold E. Ford (D-Tenn.)? Did he engineer a mass firing of U.S. attorneys as a way of derailing the investigation of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.)?

Does he secretly pull the strings of Justice?

The man in question turns out to be a strange fit in the role of shadowy operative. Hubbell is an immense person, as befits the star offensive tackle of the University of Arkansas team that won the 1969 Sugar Bowl. He lumbers rather than slinks.

Like a lot of physically imposing men, he endeavors to appear unthreatening, speaking in a gentle near-whisper and smiling softly like a shy child. He earned stacks of money as managing partner of the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark., but wears ordinary suits with stray threads dangling from the sleeves.

"He's a gentle giant type of guy," said Arkansas Times columnist John Brummett, a frequent critic of Bill Clinton but a big fan of Webb Hubbell. "I can't imagine him as some strong-arm guy imposing some sort of strong-arm position on the Justice Department."

His critics have construed him as a man of silent chicanery, but around Little Rock he is known as the mayor who crusaded for open government, the civic leader who drafted the state's first lobbyist-disclosure law, the lawyer who chaired the state bar association's ethics committee.

The problem may be that he hates talking about himself. On the eve of his long-delayed nomination, Hubbell sat for only the second interview he has given since coming to the capital. The first was with a colleague's 9-year-old daughter for a piece in the school newspaper.

"In retrospect, maybe it would have been better if I had talked to the press," he said.

If he had, Hubbell would have told a tragi-comic tale of Washington in a time of big changes. It began when his golfing buddy, Bill Clinton, asked on Christmas Eve if he would join the government. No job was mentioned. Then, in early January, he and four others accepted brief assignments helping attorney general-nominee Zoe E. Baird locate and flip all the rusty levers involved in changing an enormous Republican agency into an enormous Democratic agency.

Boom. Baird's nomination blew up, and the next presidential choice, Kimba M. Wood, withdrew. The five Democrats hunkered down. "It was purgatory," one recalled. The law enforcement arm of the world's last remaining superpower had origami for an organization chart.

The trouble with telling the press what he was doing, Hubbell suggested, was that he was not quite sure himself. His role was "multi-faceted," he said, because of the long, stumbling interregnum.

Stuart M. Gerson, a Bush holdover, was acting attorney general, and "there were a lot of things where he would want to know what the new administration was thinking," Hubbell said. "And there were issues he knew would last after he was gone, where he wanted to work with us to ensure a smooth transition."

Nor did Hubbell feel he could discuss the future. Until the other key figures in the new Justice Department were named, "I couldn't say quite where I would fit, or what my role would be."

But if Hubbell couldn't say what he was up to, others were happy to try. Thus Hubbell finds himself denying that, at the behest of the White House, he "brokered" a meeting between Gerson and the Congressional Black Caucus, which was upset that Ford, one of its members, was to be tried on bribery charges by a jury with 11 whites on it. The caucus "asked to meet with me . . . and Stuart asked to come," Hubbell said.

Everyone involved -- the White House, Hubbell, Gerson -- says that the subsequent decision to ask the judge to dismiss the jury, a bombshell that Justice quickly abandoned, was made by Gerson, the Republican holdover.

And Hubbell denies that pressing the U.S. attorneys for their resignations had anything to do with the investigation of Rostenkowski by U.S. Attorney Jay B. Stephens -- as Stephens, a Republican, has implied.

"Stephens said publicly it is not going to affect any ongoing investigations and it's not," Hubbell said. "Janet Reno asked the U.S. attorneys to inform her of any reasons why they should stay longer. A number of them have. But he chose to communicate with us exclusively through the press."

Harder to deny is that Hubbell will be the eyes and ears of the White House. With Harvard's Philip B. Heymann nominated to be deputy attorney general, and Yale's Drew Days tapped as solicitor general, Hubbell is the only Clinton insider among the department's top brass.

Intriguingly, up to now, Hubbell's specialty as a public official was smoothing things out. When his colleagues on the Little Rock city board elected him mayor in 1979, he was a calming replacement for a man who resigned abruptly after giving the press a one-fingered wave.

And in 1984, then-Gov. Clinton appointed him to fill out a term as chief of the state Supreme Court. The judges were feuding, and Hubbell's brief was to patch things up.

But lately, he has been the burr and not the balm.

Hubbell seems to understand this may be what he gets remembered for, that he may be The Mystery Man forever, whether the role fits or not. "This is the plight of the offensive lineman," he said, harkening back to his days wearing the Razorback red.

There once was a tribute for the great Razorback coach Frank Broyles, he continued. Three former players spoke. A great Arkansas quarterback was introduced by his passing statistics. A legendary running back was introduced by his rushing yardage.

"And they remembered me for the one time my man beat me and sacked the quarterback in the Sugar Bowl," Hubbell said. "Quarterbacks and running backs are remembered for their achievements. Offensive linemen are remembered for their mistakes."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11467

 

[Bullypulpit]

Were you this upset when Clinton fired 96 federal attorneys?

Clinton's nominees had to go through the Senate confirmation process. They could not be appointed to serve indefinitely, bypassing Senate confirmation, as is now possible under the USA PATRIOT Act. BUt more to the point, Goatboy never fired federal attorneys in political retribution.

The liberal media was not - and neither were Republicans

They do serve at the pleasure of the President

They serve at the pleasure of the President, but they must be confirmed by the Senate, at least until that provision was slipped into the PATRIOT Act in the middle of the night.

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media and dems were not upset when Clinton axed 96 lawyers but now they have their shorts in a knot over eight fired by the Bush administration?

The liberal bias is showing what a bunch of nuts libs have become

Libs voted for the war and the Patriot Act and now they are running scared


Stephanopoulos's Double Standard: 'Something Smells Fishy' in Bush Firings, But...
Posted by Rich Noyes on March 16, 2007 - 12:31.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos grilled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys on Wednesday, telling him that “something does seem fishy here,” suggesting that the Bush White House was punishing U.S. Attorneys who were not pursuing a GOP-friendly agenda.

But as a White House spokesman back in 1993, Stephanopoulos faced exactly the same question over President Clinton’s decision to fire U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens along with the other 92 U.S. Attorneys. “There is also a tradition of permitting prosecutors to remain on cases until current cases are completed,” a reporter told Stephanopoulos in a March 25, 1993 briefing. Referring to the investigation into House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski for embezzling money from the House Post Office, a reporter asked, “Is there any intention to keep Jay Stephens until the Rostenkowski case is finished?”

From the podium, spokesman Stephanopoulos coolly replied, “I don't think so, no.”

In his political memoir, “All Too Human,” Stephanopoulos relayed the attitude Clinton insiders had toward Stephens, who said in March 1993 he was within 30 days of finishing the Rostenkowski investigation. (With Stephens off the case, the indictment came 14 months later, in May 1994.) Hearing that Stephens had been named by a government agency to look into the Clinton’s Whitewater land deal, Stephanopoulos recalled his rage: “How could a Clinton hater like Stephens possibly conduct an impartial investigation? This is unbelievable! He has a clear conflict. How could it happen?”

Stephanopoulos voiced his outrage to Treasury Department official Josh Steiner, who told him there was no way to remove Stephens from the case. Stephanopoulos’ seeming attempt to affect the Whitewater investigation actually earned him a trip to the grand jury room, although he was never indicted.

MRC analyst Scott Whitlock took down Stephanopoulos’s accusatory questions to Gonzales from the March 14 Good Morning America:


Stephanopoulos: "But Mr. Attorney General, something does seem fishy here. Five of the eight who were dismissed were involved in high profile political corruption cases. Four were going after Republicans accused of corruption or had gone after Republicans. One was being complained about because he wasn't going after Democrats aggressively enough. So it really does appear here, at least, like you singled out prosecutors that weren't with the program."

Stephanopoulos: "And if it turns out that evidence of political interference does comes up in these e-mails and other communications, will you resign?"

Now back up to March 25, 1993, when the roles were reversed, with Republicans charging that the Clinton White House had fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in part to stall the Rostenkowski investigation. Here’s the relevant portion of Stephanopoulos’s White House briefing (unfortunately, the Federal News Service transcript retrieved via Nexis doesn’t include the names or news organizations of the reporters asking the questions):

Q It has been the custom in the past for holdover US attorneys to stay on until their successors were nominated or even in place. Why was that not done in this case?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, in this case, we thought it was most appropriate to make sure that everybody was clear from the start that the President would be making his own choices. There will be interim appointments in the meantime, largely from the career service.

Q There is also a tradition of permitting prosecutors to remain on cases until current cases are completed. In that case --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't know if -- I don't think that's true.

Q People in the field say that that is a tradition. And Jay Stephens --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And there are many others who say it's not.

Q -- Jay Stephens believes that there should be a presumption that he remain on until the Rostenkowski case is finished. Is there any intention to keep Jay Stephens until the Rostenkowski case is finished?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't think so, no.

Q Well, don't you have some concern that this might either damage that case or --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not at all. We expect -- not at all. We expect it will go forward. We expect that the investigation will continue to go forward. We expect that a good career person will be there in the interim until the President's appointment is in place and the investigations certainly will go forward.

Q Are you contradicting what Dee Dee said yesterday, that Janet Reno did not mean that all the US attorneys should clear out their desks immediately, that --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: No. There's a possibility that some won't have to do it immediately, I believe. I know that there is at least some people who are in the middle of trials right now who will not be replaced, but I think the bulk of them will be replaced over the next several weeks.

Q Well, we got the clear impression that we were being told yesterday that we had misinterpreted Reno's remarks, that while they were asking for letters of resignation, that it wasn't a wholesale clearing out all at once.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we've asked for the letters of resignation. We will be looking at these at a case-by-case basis. I think the presumption should be that the US attorneys in place will go. There might be special circumstances where some will stay.

Q How soon, what kind of timetable are you talking about?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we're working on it right now.

Q Why isn't Stephens a special circumstance?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, there are investigations going on across the country. This is one of many investigations. We expect that it will continue with the career people in place.

Q (Off mike) -- worried at all about a question of appearances here with so prominent a Democrat, and the focus here? I mean, don't you think --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: We are confident -- we have confidence in the career attorneys at the US Attorneys Office to continue this investigation.

And here’s how Stephanopoulos recalled the U.S. Attorneys firings and his attitude toward Stephens on page 247 of “All Too Human.” Stephanopoulos was explaining his phone call to Josh Steiner, a call that was later investigated by Special Counsel Robert Fiske as a possibly improper attempt to influence the Whitewater investigation (emphasis in the original):

“I got something else off my chest to Josh. I had heard that Jay Stephens, a former U.S. attorney, might have been appointed by the RTC [the Resolution Trust Corporation, the agency created to deal with S&L failures] to investigate the finances of Whitewater, and I couldn’t believe it was true. When Clinton took office, he had followed the practice of his predecessors and asked each U.S. attorney, including Stephens, to submit a pro-forma resignation. Instead of quietly submitting his resignation letter like his colleagues, Stephens had called a press conference and gone on Nightline to accuse Clinton of ‘obstructing justice,’ saying that the president was trying to derail his investigation of Democratic congressman Dan Rostenkowski. How could a Clinton hater like Stephens possibly conduct an impartial investigation? This is unbelievable! He has a clear conflict. How could it happen? I blew up at Josh and demanded to know how such an unfair choice came to be made and wether the decision was final....”
So if Stephens should be regarded as “a Clinton hater” for publicly challenging his removal from a sensitive investigation of an important House Democrat, and therefore had “a clear conflict” that meant he was too prejudiced to be trusted with an investigation, what would Stephanopoulos say about fired U.S. Attorneys like Washington state’s John McKay, who are going on TV to complain about their removal? Are they obvious “Bush haters” who are so prejudiced that their complaining should be dismissed out of hand?

Or are we to trust that Stephanopoulos has purged every partisan instinct from his body, and is unencumbered by any kind of "clear conflict" that should worry conservatives today?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11466

 

[Bullypulpit]

In 1993, WashPost Thought It Was 'Pretty Funny' Anyone Thought DOJ Was Fishy


http://newsbusters.org/node/11467

The "King of Cut-and-Paste" strikes again. Don't you have any thoughts of your own?